Really, I was not aware that homosexuals were not allowed to marry just like everyone else. They just aren't allowed to marry someone of the same sex, just like everyone else.
Gays are allowed to marry a member of the opposite sex just like everyone else. And they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex, just like everyone else.
Yes, as far as I know, in every jurisdiction homosexuals are allowed to marry anyone of the opposite sex who is not related to them or already married that is willing to marry them just as I did when I was single.
As someone else pointed out gays are allowed to marry according to the same rules as everyone else. No one is allowed to marry like gays want to.
Claiming that homosexuals are prohibited from doing something that heterosexuals are allowed to do is disingenuous. If you (or whoever) want to change the law to allow same sex marriages, stop being deceitful and saying that they are being denied the right to get married.
I'm not sure what rights you are talking about. Under current law, anybody is allowed to marry any person of the opposite sex who is not related to them or married to someone else who is willing to marry them. So what right(s) that everyone else has is it that you want to give to homosexuals?
Biblical scholarss overwhelmingly agree that Paul wrote 10 of the books in the New Testament. And yes, Timothy was certainly not written by Timothy since it is addressed to Timothy. Most Biblical scholares agree that the two letters to Timothy and the letter to Titus were written by Paul, although there is a significant number who beleive there is reason to question that.
Your idea that the reason that letters written by someone claiming to be someone else were accepted because of illiterate believers flies in the face of the fact that A:) they were intended to be read and B:) those letters are mentioned numerous times in the writtings of early second century writers who mention them as being written by the person they claim to be written by.
Yes, I see a difference between a movement that is about equal rights for all people regardless of who they are versus a movement that wants to give people "equal rights" regardless of what they do.
Whether or not one is homosexual is determined by what actions a person takes. A person who has sex with people of the same gender is homosexual. A person who does not have sex with people of the same sex is not homosexual, whether they find people of the same sex attractive or not.
No, I am saying that who you have sex with is a choice. For that matter whether or not you have sex is a choice (except for rape victims, but I don't consider someone homosexual because someone of the same sex raped them). As far as I'm concerned, if you have never had sex with someone of the same sex, you are not homosexual (even if you would like to).
The government does not discriminate on the basis of who you like to have sex with. Heterosexuals are also not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
I have never heard of a place that forbids homosexuals from marrying just like everyone else. It is just that, like everyone else, they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
That being said, I believe that Christian Churches should stop recognizing the government's authority to "bless" marriages.
There are no similarities between the movement for black civil rights and the movement for homosexual "civil rights". One is a movement that is about what someone is born like (with very dark skin). The other is a movement about what someone does (have sex with people of the same gender).
I am tired of people saying that gays do not have the same marriage rights as everyone else. I don't know if you have noticed, but every place that does not allow gay marriage also prohibits heterosexuals from marrying someone of the same sex as well.
which law was broken by offering jobs to people so they wouldn't run against an incumbent? Seems like a typical political favor to me. Disappointing, but not surprising in the least from a politician.
Depending on the explicitness of the offer it may violate several clauses of Title 18 of the federal criminal code. The Administration admitted that if they explicitly offered Sestack an Administration job it would be a violation of the law. http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/25/top-obama-adviser-says-no-evidence-that-sestaks-bribe-charge-is-true/
There are other sources which give quotes from Administration members admitting that it is illegal to offer someone a job to drop out of an election.
BTW, unlike Bill Kristol, who writes opinion pieces, Jayson Blair was supposedly writing news articles.
Which doesn't explain why he's still invited on news programs, but nice attempt at misdirection. Maybe you'd like to take a shot at explaining why Dan Rather was fired - over guard memos that were sourced for the accuracy of their content - yet reporters writing and airing "news articles" featuring the bogus claims of the Bush Administration still have their jobs.
First, as far as I know Bill Kristol has been on shows that discuss the news, not shows that report the news. Perhaps occasionally a show that reports the news will ask him his opinion about news that it is reporting.
As for the memos that Dan Rather was fired over, he was fired because he claimed they were either original documents or photocopies of original documents when they clearly were not. As to them being "sourced for the accuracy of their content", considering that the person who supposedly wrote them is dead and the person they were supposedly sent to is also dead, who exactly is that source?
It has been encountered and ignored. For brewers and bread makers (and the many other varied users of yeast), it is really not that important that the yeast not get into the wild because that's where they got it from. Basically the question is, is this "special" strain of yeast one that they isolated from the wild or is it one they created by injecting new DNA into an existing strain? If the former, it is no problem if it gets into the wild, it was already there. If the latter than there may be problems, but just as important, it will be harder to monetize it because others will be able to obtain it by setting up collection points near your plant and using similar selection processes to what people have been usign for years to isolate this strain.
The Obama Administration is less transparent than any previous Administration. He promised that the crafting of Health Care Reform would be done in front of the C-span cameras. It wasn't. When asked about someone in the Administration breaking the law by offering various people jobs not to run against incumbents, the WH Press Secretary said he would look into it and get back to the reporter (he never did). When the push for answers got loud enough, the WH said, "We looked into it and nothing improper was done. End of story." Please name one incident where the Obama Administration has demonstrated transparency.
Obama said during the campaign that he would have no lobbyists in his Administration. He has more lobbyists in his Administration than Bush did.
Yes, there are quite a few lobbyists who represent organizations that are made up of Joe Six Packs and/or their families. Who do you think is in the Sierra Club? Or the NRA? or MADD? These are all organizations that at least started out representing a coalition of common ordinary citizens (you can argue about whether they still do or not, but even if you question whether these organizations still represent the ordinary citizen, there are other organizations that do).
That is why doing "campaign finance reform" is troubling, how do you prevent corporate lobbying without preventing ordinary citizens from banding together and sending a representative to Washington to keep track of their particular interests?
That is easy, for the Obama Administration a lobbyist is someone who tries to convince Congressmen to pass laws that Obama opposes or to oppose legislation that Obama supports. Everyone else is a public spirited individual.
You mean there are promises he has kept?
Government transparency? Ummm, no
If you like your health insurance, you can keep it? Umm, no
No lobbyists in the Obama Administration? Umm, no
Close Guantanomo within a year? Umm, no
Slashdot Mirror
So, you aren't tolerant. You just don't care. That is not the same thing.
So, you are not really tolerant. You are only tolerant of what people who agree with what you think is important.
Really, I was not aware that homosexuals were not allowed to marry just like everyone else. They just aren't allowed to marry someone of the same sex, just like everyone else.
Gays are allowed to marry a member of the opposite sex just like everyone else. And they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex, just like everyone else.
Yes, as far as I know, in every jurisdiction homosexuals are allowed to marry anyone of the opposite sex who is not related to them or already married that is willing to marry them just as I did when I was single.
As someone else pointed out gays are allowed to marry according to the same rules as everyone else. No one is allowed to marry like gays want to.
Claiming that homosexuals are prohibited from doing something that heterosexuals are allowed to do is disingenuous. If you (or whoever) want to change the law to allow same sex marriages, stop being deceitful and saying that they are being denied the right to get married.
What rights that everyone else has are homosexuals deprived of?
I'm not sure what rights you are talking about. Under current law, anybody is allowed to marry any person of the opposite sex who is not related to them or married to someone else who is willing to marry them. So what right(s) that everyone else has is it that you want to give to homosexuals?
You apparently missed that it was a spoof site (and a very old one at that).
Why would I be tolerant of someone who does not repay the favor?
So, you are only tolerant of people who share your beliefs?
What rights do I have that gays don't?
Biblical scholarss overwhelmingly agree that Paul wrote 10 of the books in the New Testament. And yes, Timothy was certainly not written by Timothy since it is addressed to Timothy. Most Biblical scholares agree that the two letters to Timothy and the letter to Titus were written by Paul, although there is a significant number who beleive there is reason to question that.
Your idea that the reason that letters written by someone claiming to be someone else were accepted because of illiterate believers flies in the face of the fact that A:) they were intended to be read and B:) those letters are mentioned numerous times in the writtings of early second century writers who mention them as being written by the person they claim to be written by.
Yes, I see a difference between a movement that is about equal rights for all people regardless of who they are versus a movement that wants to give people "equal rights" regardless of what they do.
Whether or not one is homosexual is determined by what actions a person takes. A person who has sex with people of the same gender is homosexual. A person who does not have sex with people of the same sex is not homosexual, whether they find people of the same sex attractive or not.
No, I am saying that who you have sex with is a choice. For that matter whether or not you have sex is a choice (except for rape victims, but I don't consider someone homosexual because someone of the same sex raped them). As far as I'm concerned, if you have never had sex with someone of the same sex, you are not homosexual (even if you would like to).
The government does not discriminate on the basis of who you like to have sex with. Heterosexuals are also not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
I have never heard of a place that forbids homosexuals from marrying just like everyone else. It is just that, like everyone else, they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
That being said, I believe that Christian Churches should stop recognizing the government's authority to "bless" marriages.
There are no similarities between the movement for black civil rights and the movement for homosexual "civil rights". One is a movement that is about what someone is born like (with very dark skin). The other is a movement about what someone does (have sex with people of the same gender).
I am tired of people saying that gays do not have the same marriage rights as everyone else. I don't know if you have noticed, but every place that does not allow gay marriage also prohibits heterosexuals from marrying someone of the same sex as well.
which law was broken by offering jobs to people so they wouldn't run against an incumbent? Seems like a typical political favor to me. Disappointing, but not surprising in the least from a politician.
Depending on the explicitness of the offer it may violate several clauses of Title 18 of the federal criminal code. The Administration admitted that if they explicitly offered Sestack an Administration job it would be a violation of the law. http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/25/top-obama-adviser-says-no-evidence-that-sestaks-bribe-charge-is-true/ There are other sources which give quotes from Administration members admitting that it is illegal to offer someone a job to drop out of an election.
Which doesn't explain why he's still invited on news programs, but nice attempt at misdirection. Maybe you'd like to take a shot at explaining why Dan Rather was fired - over guard memos that were sourced for the accuracy of their content - yet reporters writing and airing "news articles" featuring the bogus claims of the Bush Administration still have their jobs.
First, as far as I know Bill Kristol has been on shows that discuss the news, not shows that report the news. Perhaps occasionally a show that reports the news will ask him his opinion about news that it is reporting.
As for the memos that Dan Rather was fired over, he was fired because he claimed they were either original documents or photocopies of original documents when they clearly were not. As to them being "sourced for the accuracy of their content", considering that the person who supposedly wrote them is dead and the person they were supposedly sent to is also dead, who exactly is that source?
It has been encountered and ignored. For brewers and bread makers (and the many other varied users of yeast), it is really not that important that the yeast not get into the wild because that's where they got it from. Basically the question is, is this "special" strain of yeast one that they isolated from the wild or is it one they created by injecting new DNA into an existing strain? If the former, it is no problem if it gets into the wild, it was already there. If the latter than there may be problems, but just as important, it will be harder to monetize it because others will be able to obtain it by setting up collection points near your plant and using similar selection processes to what people have been usign for years to isolate this strain.
The Obama Administration is less transparent than any previous Administration. He promised that the crafting of Health Care Reform would be done in front of the C-span cameras. It wasn't. When asked about someone in the Administration breaking the law by offering various people jobs not to run against incumbents, the WH Press Secretary said he would look into it and get back to the reporter (he never did). When the push for answers got loud enough, the WH said, "We looked into it and nothing improper was done. End of story." Please name one incident where the Obama Administration has demonstrated transparency. Obama said during the campaign that he would have no lobbyists in his Administration. He has more lobbyists in his Administration than Bush did.
Yes, there are quite a few lobbyists who represent organizations that are made up of Joe Six Packs and/or their families. Who do you think is in the Sierra Club? Or the NRA? or MADD? These are all organizations that at least started out representing a coalition of common ordinary citizens (you can argue about whether they still do or not, but even if you question whether these organizations still represent the ordinary citizen, there are other organizations that do).
That is why doing "campaign finance reform" is troubling, how do you prevent corporate lobbying without preventing ordinary citizens from banding together and sending a representative to Washington to keep track of their particular interests?
That is easy, for the Obama Administration a lobbyist is someone who tries to convince Congressmen to pass laws that Obama opposes or to oppose legislation that Obama supports. Everyone else is a public spirited individual.
You mean there are promises he has kept?
Government transparency? Ummm, no
If you like your health insurance, you can keep it? Umm, no
No lobbyists in the Obama Administration? Umm, no
Close Guantanomo within a year? Umm, no